When we humans look at problems at a glance we tend to naturally and quickly gravitate towards one solution. This could be caused by a past experience, prior educated knowledge, or simply by just a rapid decision made on the fly. We very regularly take every problem and research the multiple sides and diagnose an all encompassing solution. These ideas we form when searching for solutions are also widely prompted by the way we gather information. This is more apparently true today with all of the forms of electronic media available at our fingertips. I would suggest we quickly would gravitate towards the popular culture viewpoints whenever the problems fall outside our realm of expertise. This is all because most media sources are popular culture media sources. It is much more difficult to get the professional opinion when researching. I am now going to explain how drastically different these popular viewpoints versus professional views are and the importance to research before drawing an opinion.
According to the popular websites and articles I have read it appears that military technology needs help. These articles are all about getting the soldier out of harm’s way. They all seem to be about new technologies that work with robotics, drones, or special technologies mounted on a military vehicle. These technologies try to make military tactics autonomous by removing the troops from dangerous situations. One article is about MIT creating a technology for soldiers to see through concrete walls. This would allow them to survey buildings before entry, and when mounted to a vehicle the soldiers could do this remotely. Another article is about the development of drone aircraft. These aircraft can allow for surveillance, engaging targets, and even dropping off supplies. This technology again allows for the removal of a human life from the spoils of war. Popular Mechanics has an article about the use of robots for the removal of humans in tactical operations. These robots can be used for bomb disposal, reconnaissance missions, riot control and even delivering supplies to soldiers. This is only a few dangerous and handy chores that soldiers have done for years.
This kind of technology changes the way wars will be fought. It also drives for better consumer goods, because with the advancement of military technology brings the consumer technology advancement as well. Another trend I noticed was that technology needs to be cheaper to allow for more of it in the place of combat. These media types push for the removal of humans from as far away from the battlefield as possible. “Military planners are developing technologies for autonomous drones; aircraft that are supposedly "intelligent" and can make their own decisions on when to unleash lethal force.”( David Cortright, Special to CNN) ” The drones are dramatically tilting the war in favor of the United States. Predators, for example, played a key role in killing al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi in 2006. UAVs are credited with killing more than half al Qaeda's top 20 leaders.” (Nic Robertson, CNN) When comments like these start circling through the media along with the unquantifiable amount of stories about the deaths of our troops, the opinion in favor of removing our troops from the line of fire.
“More relevant fact: As usual, the jobs in question are the sort of thankless, dangerous and unsavory work that most humans would run screaming from.” (Erik Sofge, Popular Mechanics) This text was taken from an article in Popular Mechanics about the use of militaristic robots. The quote was based on the comment that robots are taking jobs that humans should not have to do. The jobs are considered dirty, highly dangerous, and unsavory. I received this message as wow we do really need robots in the battlefield to keep humans out of the line of fire. When I read an article by Fox News about how soldiers are naming bomb defusing robots and treating them like part of the family because they are so highly valued for their duty hammers the message home. These robots need to be the way of the future.
Contrasting opinions based on reading some professional journals delivers a different message. From two Journals I read the professionals are greatly concerned about the “Ethics” involved with using robots and high end autonomous technology on the battlefield. The concern is robots do not have the sense of reasoning that humans do. Robots do not value human life and they are prepared to kill anything they are programmed to. The argument is posed that a human can tell right from wrong and then determine if the need for lethal force is necessary. The professional point on the current robot situation is even though soldiers are currently using robots for tasks, the human mind is still the driving force behind the rational decisions. They fear with using robots completely there is a disconnection between the threats of danger that comes along with war. This may mean that countries will be just creating these death machines and wipe out others because they have no human lives at stake. The use of force and decision making is already being altered with the use of drones. The professionals also have this same concern with the use of robots in elderly care.
In the journal written by Colin Allen he asks the question “Can robots be made to respect the differences of right and wrong?” He then states, “Without this ability, autonomous robots are a bad idea not just for military use but in other settings as well, such as eldercare facilities”. The professionals draw a link between the use of human lives to fight as a very powerful tool towards deterrence and an end to the use of war. Without the threat of the loss families, countries and cultures along both sides of the battlefield, there are no longer ethical deterrence’s towards the use of violence.
The other consideration to be made is the huge loss of civilian casualties associated with robots and drones engaging targets because they meet the requirements of a breathing body where they should not be. An autonomous death machine will have a difficult time trying to decipher between a 14 year kid and a soldier. Also will it have the capacity to determine whether that 14 year old kid is indeed harmless or packing weapons to use to inflict damage on the opposition? “The semiautonomous unmanned combat air vehicles, such as the MQ1 Predator and MQ9 Reapers, carry Hellfire missiles and bombs that have been involved in many strikes against insurgent targets that have resulted in the deaths of many innocents, including children.”(Noel Sharkey, AAS.org) He continues to say, “Currently, all these weapons have a human in the loop to decide when to apply lethal force. However, there are plans to create robots that can autonomously locate targets and destroy them without human intervention.”
Sharkey and Allen present a very different case to what a quick look at popular media may imply about the prompt need for more autonomous machines on the battlefield. Sharkey pretty much sums up the professional opinion when saying, “The ethical problems arise because no computational system can discriminate between combatants and innocents in a close-contact encounter. Computer programs require a clear definition of a noncombatant, but none is available.”
In conclusion when we begin to process a problem we need to make a better effort to examine both sides of every story. In the case of use of autonomous machines on the battlefield the “Pros” and “Shmos” had vastly different opinions. I would also have to add that just because the people within the “professional” category make their points it does not invalidate the cases wagered from the popular sources as well. The popular opinion also can also have a good message. I would propose that the best approach towards any problem would be a mixture of both sides. There is a lot to be learned from the old adage, “there are two sides to every story and the truth lies somewhere in-between.” Based on this experience there also needs to be a different approach to what we see as the “Professional” opinion, in most cases I would make the argument that people tend to view popular media as professional.
Works Cited
Allen, Collin, Wendall Wallach, David Axe, Williams Waddell, and Alex Roland. "Robots At War." The Wilson Quarterly 33.2 (2009): 6-9. Print.
Cortright, David. "The Scary Prospect of Global Drone Warfare - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/19/opinion/cortright-drones/index.html?iref=allsearch>.
"MIT Tech Helps U.S. Soldiers See Through Concrete Walls | Fox News." Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/10/19/mit-tech-helps-us-soldiers-see-through-concrete-walls/>.
Robertson, Nic. "How Robot Drones Revolutionized the Face of Warfare - CNN.com." CNN.com International - Breaking, World, Business, Sports, Entertainment and Video News. 27 July 2009. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/07/23/wus.warfare.remote.uav/index.html>.
Sharkey, Noel. "The Ethical Frontiers of Robotics." Science AAAS.org. AAAS.org, 19 Dec. 2008. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.sciencemag.org.proxy.libraries.uc.edu/content/322/5909/1800.full>.
Sofge, Erik. "Robotic Task Force: A Two-Robot, Bomb-Defusing, Riot-Controlling, Firefighting Team (With Video!) - Popular Mechanics." Automotive Care, Home Improvement, Tools, DIY Tips - Popular Mechanics. Web. 25 Oct. 2011. <http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/robots/4313799>.
